Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:56 pm  

Rotherham child rapist has sentence doubled Up from 6 years to 12. Might do 4 now.

Rotherham child rapist has sentence doubled Up from 6 years to 12. Might do 4 now.

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:07 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

You asked why the perpetrator wasn't named. FA told you. I told you. I'll repeat - it is so the children can't be identified/named.

Already covered that.

I know

Because you say it doesn't make it fact.

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:10 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

Because you say it doesn't make it fact.

No it doesn't. But the fact that it is actually a fact makes it a fact.

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:27 pm  

Him wrote:

No it doesn't. But the fact that it is actually a fact makes it a fact.

^ this

Re: Rotherham : Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:39 am  

Him wrote:

No it doesn't. But the fact that it is actually a fact makes it a fact.

Anything to support this being a fact in this case?

Re: Rotherham : Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:26 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

Anything to support this being a fact in this case?

From the report: "The woman, whose identity is protected by law, said: "I couldn't believe they'd closed my case. I felt let down again and totally trapped."

Now can you suggest, given the fact that it was her father that was convicted, could possibly have her identity protected by law, if her birth father's identity is published? His ethnicity and/or religion are immaterial to any public interest, save for the purposes of demonising a religion/ethnic group or satisfying some form of weird voyeurism.

I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just plain thick

Re: Rotherham : Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:28 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Rotherham child rapist has sentence doubled Up from 6 years to 12. Might do 4 now. Why would he only do four years?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Rotherham child rapist has sentence doubled Up from 6 years to 12. Might do 4 now. Why would he only do four years?

Re: Rotherham : Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:46 am  

cod'ead wrote:

From the report: "The woman, whose identity is protected by law, said: "I couldn't believe they'd closed my case. I felt let down again and totally trapped."

Now can you suggest, given the fact that it was her father that was convicted, could possibly have her identity protected by law, if her birth father's identity is published? His ethnicity and/or religion are immaterial to any public interest, save for the purposes of demonising a religion/ethnic group or satisfying some form of weird voyeurism.

I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just plain thick

Just because it says that and the law says that doesn't make it a fact.

Re: Rotherham : Sun Sep 21, 2014 8:03 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote: Anything to support this being a fact in this case? Section 1 of this act that is still in force Good enough for you, troll?

LeagueDweeb wrote: Anything to support this being a fact in this case? Section 1 of this act that is still in force Good enough for you, troll?

Re: Rotherham : Mon Sep 22, 2014 3:42 pm  

What happened to challenging facts? He's letting the side down.